Monday, October 08, 2012

Tories Against Cameron's Redefinition of Marriage

71% of local Tory Party chairman expressing serious concern over David Cameron's proposal for "gay marriage" saying it is likely to loose them votes rather than win them. I am told even in Brighton and Hove where our own gay MP Mike Weatherley, in all practical senses of the word refuses to discuss the matter, there is serious concern. My parishioners say he just sends them dismissive and contemptuous letters.

At their Birmingham conference any discussion of "gay marriage" has been banned however Ann Widdecombe spoke to a capacity audience of 1,1000 at a fringe meeting in Birmingham City Hall, many others were unable to get in. She ridiculed the idea of getting rid of terms like "husband" and "wife" and replacing them with "partners to the marriage", she also hit out at Cameron's view of freedom:

"No society can be free without the freedom to dissent and no democracy real without the recognition of a plurality of views... David Cameron: Tell me how a party devoted to freedom, a party that has always opposed oppression and the power of the state over the individual, can even contemplate creating such a Britain?"

Speaking a few days ago to a couple of people who have strong contacts with Conservative Central Office, I am told that most MPs just wish this issue will go away. Like Mike Weatherley many have slim or shaky majorities and though personally they might be ambivalent to the either for religious or social reasons, or like Ann Widdecombe because of the freedom issues it raises, they are loathe to put their heads above the parapet, fearing charges of homophobia but on the other-hand so many Tory activists; the door knockers and envelope stuffers are social (small "c") conservatives and are even threatening to withdraw their support, if Cameron goes ahead with this.
Being cynical, I suspect various Tory ministers suggesting recently a lowering of the age at which abortion can take place is sop to those Christians against "gay marriage", an attempt to keep them on board.

Someone needs to throw Davey under Mother R's bus. Maggie T. got the heave-ho over the poll tax IIRC -- isn't it about time the UK Conservatives left in the Conservative party tell him his number is up? How on earth do these party leaders get picked? Rock/Paper/Scissors elimination? Dave's a Conservative like The Pope is a Muslim.

Rupert Everett put his gucchis in it recently saying same sex marriage was stupid and that same sex couples should'nt be allowed to adpot. His since changed his position on account of all the death threats. Freedom of speech.

Not a lot of people know it but the most vociferous and threatening lobbyists for Same Sex Marriage are the "rough trade" or renters who congregate around homosexuals. These are mainly evil amoral individuals who will do anything; a lot like Graham Greene,s Pinkie Brown

“And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” (Jesus, quoted in John 8:32)

Patrick Henry, sometime Governor of Virginia and a Founding Father who was the son of John Henry, an immigrant from Aberdeen and an alumnus of the Granite City’s King’s College, during the 1765 debate in the state legislature at Williamsburg on the Virginia Stamp Act Resolutions which he authored, did not in fact say: “If this be treason, make the most of it.”

However, on another occasion he did say: “It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains.”

So maybe it is time the Tories in Conference (and a lot of other people in other situations) did make the most of a bi of treason!

Goodness, there is a lot of bile spewing forth on this matter. Some of the comments here are simply childish. If the Church is to carry the debate on this important issue (even though same sex religious ceremonies will be banned in E&W) it will need to be done rationally and without rancour - else it WILL be lost.

Parepidemos says: "Some of the comments here are simply childish... same sex religious ceremonies will be banned in E&W"

Really? WRONG! (And how REALLY childish.)

In Schalk and Kopf v. Austria (30141/04; judgement issued June 24, 2010) the European Court held that there is no obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights for States to legalise same-sex marriage and/or “gay” civil partnerships. However, it is settled jurisprudence of the Court that IF a member State DID decide to legalise same-sex marriage then they HAD to ensure that this form of marriage was provided on EXACTLY the same basis as heterosexual marriage.

In Schalk the Court also observed: “While the Court had often underlined that the Convention was a living instrument which had to be interpreted in present-day conditions, it had only used that approach to develop its jurisprudence where it had perceived a convergence of standards among member States"(at paragraph 46).

In Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC] (no. 28957/95, ECHR 2002 VI) the Court had reviewed its position regarding the possibility of post-operative transsexuals to marry a person of the sex opposite to their acquired gender, having regard to the fact that a majority of Contracting States permitted such marriages. In contrast there was no convergence of standards as regards same-sex marriage. In the absence of consensus, the State enjoyed a particularly wide margin of appreciation.

The Coalition for Marriage organised a fringe debate at this year's Tory Party Conference and the Westminster think tank group Policy Exchange (David Cameron's favourite think tank) had agreed to take part. At the last moment they pulled out, leaving an empty chair.

The contempt that the Cameron Government holds for supporters of traditional marriage is palpable.

Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna

My Parish's Website

Comments

Comments may or may not be published. The choice is made on the spur of the moment and is purely arbitary. I do not necessarily agree with all comments published but they are published in the interest of debate. If you object go here.